Does anybody else consider the Book of Mormon to be fiction?

[Rajah Manchou]

20 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Show us the location of the hill where the plates were buried and retrieved by Joseph Smith.

Oh, neve mind, you wrote "almost perfectly".  I thin that would be  a stretch of a very wild imagination.

I'm not going to get in a zinger match with anybody over Book of Mormon geography.

But to answer your question (because I assume you didn't even bother to watch the video) the hill in this model is called Hill Maw (Ramah?) next to an area called Marong or Maroni, which is the name of a warrior king from the Middle East who, according to legend, lived in the area around Book of Mormon times. This hill is in a region of Burma where the local tribes believe that they once had a golden book with the words of God in it. They claim the golden book was taken west by their younger white brother and will one day return. Would it be a stretch of wild imagination to see a similarity in the story of Moroni taking the Golden Plates somewhere? If that is a stretch than do you have another model with a more convincing equivalent of Moroni and a hill where golden plates were buried?

You don't have to believe this model, but its not accurate to say that Mesoamerica is the only place that bears resemblance to the Book of Mormon account.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Rajah Manchou

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

And there are still KJB errors in the BoM...how is that possible if it is an ancient text?  

The FAIR response to this question, IMO, does not provide a valid answer.  

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Translation_Errors_from_the_KJV

That's weak evidence compared with the totality of the English-language text. Many of the so-called errors of the KJB are not errors. But let's stipulate that there are a few perpetuated errors. It's possible that the Lord didn't deem it necessary to change them, keeping the text in those few cases.  But you're really deflecting.  270,000 words arranged in a way that matches little known usage of the past, deeply archaic semantic and morphological usage.  It all adds up to something much more than a few KJB errors.  The FAIR response is not to be counted on here, since their perspective is inaccurate.

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Perspective matters on this, it seems most already consider some weird Christian cult.  No one is saying we do away with the BoM, though. 

Technically the CoC still has the BoM, but it is of secondary importance at best. All to appeal to the vanity of men. The threat to the world is the BoM. Because if it is true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, all others, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”.

We were called and now called Mormons because of our belief in the Book of Mormon. It was, and is used to try to separate us from Jesus Christ.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I don't consider the BoM being true history as the foundations of the Church.  I think the Church is best off to change it's attitude on this. 

If it does, it will cease to be Church of Jesus Christ. 

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I think before making this argument you'd have to first establish firmly and clearly that no one but an English philologist could have composed the Book of Mormon - I'm not sure how you'd demonstrate that assertion. 

The idea of a 16th century translation of the BOM certainly doesn't advance case for the historicity of the book. At its most successful it would perhaps point to a 16th century author, but from what I've seen of the theory so far even that seems like a stretch. I use the word theory loosely. 

You've mischaracterized the position in order to dismiss it more easily.  It's not a 16c translation.  The text has elements from the 14c, the 15c, the 16c, the 17c, the 18c, and perhaps even the 19c.  The theory of a divine English-language translation is a very strong one, since it agrees with the dictation witnesses and rests on thousands of data points, concrete textual data, that cannot be denied, except by those who are ideologically dug in.

There is a large amount of archaic and obsolete usage in the text, and much arcane matching with earlier usage as well.  That leads to the philologist assertion.  There are dozens of instances of archaic, non-biblical vocabulary in the earliest text, there is plenty of archaic morphological form, and the syntax is deeply and broadly archaic.  Can you find an 18c book that uses periphrastic did the way the BofM does?  Can you find a pseudo-biblical text that does?  How about the broad array of agentive "of" in the BofM?  What about the heavy use of personal which?  How about the syntactic complementation of the text?  How about the syntax after the conjunction "save"?  How about the nearby variation of was and were, mediated by the syntax?  How about the clear use of Scotticisms in the text?  How about all the well-formed literate language?  Etc.

[Ouagadougou]

15 minutes ago, champatsch said:

That's weak evidence compared with the totality of the English-language text. Many of the so-called errors of the KJB are not errors. But let's stipulate that there are a few perpetuated errors. It's possible that the Lord didn't deem it necessary to change them, keeping the text in those few cases.  But you're really deflecting.  270,000 words arranged in a way that matches little known usage of the past, deeply archaic semantic and morphological usage.  It all adds up to something much more than a few KJB errors.  The FAIR response is not to be counted on here, since their perspective is inaccurate.

I think it's totally possible that JS wrote the  BoM; I believe he was very smart, was great at telling stories, and had a remarkable memory.  He loved to read and most likely had access to other books that he could have used for inspiration, IMO.  Since I am a Mark Twain fan, look at his review of the BoM:

http://www.online-literature.com/twain/roughing-it/17/

I think the BoM has some inspirational verses/stories -- I just don't believe that these verses/stories actually happened.  

[Rajah Manchou]

32 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Show us the location of the Smith farmhouse, and the  hill where the plates were buried and retrieved by Joseph Smith. Or is that just a small detail, "almost perfect".

"Common sense is very uncommon"  Mark Twain

I think everybody already knows where the Smith farmhouse is, and the hill.

If you have substantive questions or comments I'd be happy to discuss. But this is just obviously snark.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Because they have already come to the conclusion that it did not happen, IMO.  Do you really think that these organizations might think the BoM is non-fiction; however, they don't want to leverage it in any of their research?  

"The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archaeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect."

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeology/Smithsonian_statement

If they don't use it (and have never used) in their research, then this speaks volumns, IMO.  

It does not necessarily "speak volumes" but speaks simply: you cannot use the Smithsonian statement to discredit the Book of Mormon based on archaeology.

[thesometimesaint]

20 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I think it's totally possible that JS wrote the  BoM; I believe he was very smart, was great at telling stories, and had a remarkable memory.  He loved to read and most likely had access to other books that he could have used for inspiration, IMO.  Since I am a Mark Twain fan, look at his review of the BoM:

http://www.online-literature.com/twain/roughing-it/17/

I think the BoM has some inspirational verses/stories -- I just don't believe that these verses/stories actually happened.  

That intellectual genius with a third grade education, and an ever expanding Palmyra reading lending library.

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It was vision.  Who knows how that crap works? 

I have no idea as well.  If Moroni never existed, was he just part of Joseph Smith's imagination?  It's interesting that other people were also having visions in the 1800's.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/16

[stemelbow]

53 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Technically the CoC still has the BoM, but it is of secondary importance at best. All to appeal to the vanity of men. The threat to the world is the BoM. Because if it is true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, all others, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”.

We were called and now called Mormons because of our belief in the Book of Mormon. It was, and is used to try to separate us from Jesus Christ.

It seems like you're talking right over me, so I'll leave you to it.  I agree, belief in the BoM as scripture should remain.

[Ouagadougou]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That intellectual genius with a third grade education, and an ever expanding Palmyra reading lending library.

 

"During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."

- Lucy Mack Smith

https://archive.org/stream/biographicalsket00smit_0#page/92/mode/1up

"Despite limited schooling Joseph Smith loved to study and learn. In part he was influenced by schoolteacher associates. His father once taught school. His maternal grandmother, a schoolteacher, taught his mother the rudiments of 'sums, 'write-o-hand' and spelling.' Joseph's wife was a schoolteacher, 'a woman of liberal culture and insistent on education.' And his primary scribe during the translating of the Book of Mormon was schoolteacher Oliver Cowdery."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/09/joseph-smith-and-nauvoos-youth?lang=eng

[stemelbow]

52 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If it does, it will cease to be Church of Jesus Christ. 

Disagree.  Not sure why anyone would think it'd cease to exist. 

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

IOW My mind is made up, and no facts will change it.

If you are putting words in my mouth you're wrong...I've been wrong many times and made drastic turns to correct them, but this is not one of them. No amount of testimony or hearsay will  account for facts.

Edited November 16, 2016 by Atheist Mormon

[churchistrue]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

You've mischaracterized the position in order to dismiss it more easily.  It's not a 16c translation.  The text has elements from the 14c, the 15c, the 16c, the 17c, the 18c, and perhaps even the 19c.  The theory of a divine English-language translation is a very strong one, since it agrees with the dictation witnesses and rests on thousands of data points, concrete textual data, that cannot be denied, except by those who are ideologically dug in.

There is a large amount of archaic and obsolete usage in the text, and much arcane matching with earlier usage as well.  That leads to the philologist assertion.  There are dozens of instances of archaic, non-biblical vocabulary in the earliest text, there is plenty of archaic morphological form, and the syntax is deeply and broadly archaic.  Can you find an 18c book that uses periphrastic did the way the BofM does?  Can you find a pseudo-biblical text that does?  How about the broad array of agentive "of" in the BofM?  What about the heavy use of personal which?  How about the syntactic complementation of the text?  How about the syntax after the conjunction "save"?  How about the nearby variation of was and were, mediated by the syntax?  How about the clear use of Scotticisms in the text?  How about all the well-formed literate language?  Etc.

I want to make sure I'm not mischaracterizing the argument also, but my understanding is that it's not necessarily the appearance of these various grammatic elements but the frequencies and the ratios?  Is that right?  Because whenever you list these various elements, like the "did go" "did eat" for example, I can always find usages in what seems like common sources, when I check advanced Google book search.  Please be patient with me, I know I'm an amateur.  I'm not being dismissive, I just don't get it.  What exactly is it about the EModE that makes the BOM impossible or unlikely to have been written in 19th century?  It seems like if you find it at all in 19th century, and you understand that it "sounds" like the ancient style, that one intentionally writing in the ancient style might use it in higher frequency?  So the higher frequency argument doesn't make sense.  What am I missing?

 

[Boanerges]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

That intellectual genius with a third grade education, and an ever expanding Palmyra reading lending library.

Education=/=intelligence nor does intelligence=education. One can be extremely intelligent yet lack the resources to become educated and one can be very educated and lack intelligence.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

From what I understand of the kinds of evidence that John has presented, mainstream mesoamericanists do not interpret any of this as evidence for the existence of Nephites or any other unknown group of Semitic immigrants. Depending on how you interpret the BOM, of course, you can interpret existing archaeological finds as being consistent with Book of Mormon cultures, but that's not quite the same thing as there being evidence that Nephites existed. One could do the same with any number of other cultures around the world. And indeed many have done just that. 

What's in a name?

Sigh.

....Only an interpretation- I don't have to say it all again do I ?

A rose is a rose is a rose.

Odd from one who allegedly believes this:

 

Quote

Do not say "This is a stone and not God." God forbid! Rather, all existence is God, and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity. - Moses Cordovero

A Lamanite is a thing pervaded by Aztec-ness.

Edited November 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Jeanne]

40 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Education=/=intelligence nor does intelligence=education. One can be extremely intelligent yet lack the resources to become educated and one can be very educated and lack intelligence.

True. I know some very gifted people that can't spell "cat".

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't know what part of Jeredites mentioned in Mesoamerican history but I never heard of it outside of Mormon circles. Maybe you are thinking of an alternative Universe of ours these events happened but not in this one. We have no evidence of BoM.

Contrary to your plea I must act totally ignorant of BoM Archaeology...If I were taking it seriously then I must also be open all other conjectures of Erich von Daniken, Charles Berlitz', not to mention "Abduction stories".....These speculations are conjectures without a shred of evidence.

Let me make this really really simple for you.

"Jardite"= "Olmec" and "Lamanite/Nephite" = "Aztec/ Mayan"

Very roughly of course.

Are there evidences for these other peoples named differently by a different culture?

You know, like "Munich" is "Munchen" and "Florence" is "Firenze"??

Ring a bell ??

How relevent is von Daniken to that translation shift?  

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I think everybody already knows where the Smith farmhouse is, and the hill.
 

Where is it on your map?  Joseph Smith went to the hill where the plates were buried, so we need to get some idea how far the farm house was from the hill where the plates were buried.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Welcome back, Gervin.  Haven't heard from you in a while.  Nice to have my own words quoted back to me.  Thanks.  However, you violated board rules in editing my quote:

I always recommend that you actually quote the person to whom I was responding.  You may not care, but it is important for those who take scholarship seriously.

I have heard his objection zillions of times, a statement which itself  pretty well summarizes the below response.

A CLAIM of "millions dead" does not mean multiple millions of dead bodies on a battle field any more than a claim of having heard multiple "zillions" of repeated objections means that there really were that many.  

Critics cite "Mormon truth claims" as incorrect- until it is in their advantage to somehow equate "claims" with "reality", as is happening here.  "Millions" of course in certain languages can just mean "an innumerable number"

How many times are "seventy times seven" in the bible?  

Remind me to keep a counter in my pocket.  I forgive you Gervin.

Click.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Where is it on your map?  Joseph Smith went to the hill where the plates were buried, so we need to get some idea how far the farm house was from the hill where the plates were buried.

Joseph failed to mention the Concorde 2 he kept in the barn which got him from the south pacific to home in a few hours

Didn't you know that?

 

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have heard his objection zillions of times, a statement which itself  pretty well summarizes the below response.

... How many times are "seventy times seven" in the bible?  

Remind me to keep a counter in my pocket.  I forgive you Gervin.

Click.

   

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

You are not going to convince me with the connection of Jeredites and Olmecs,

I am showing that "I have neve heard of them" argument is flawed.  "Olmec" was NOT their name.

as I wrote nobody even has a clue what Jeredites are....Besides putting link from NG magazine bones & pots mean absolutely nothing.

Besides if this BoM is Lord's work, why does He make it so hard for us to understand get a clue?

The old atheist argument ==>>

Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people.  Why didn't Christ appear to Caesar and the Sanhedrin after the resurrection == it would have made it so much easier for the Christians.

Basically your argument is "If I wee God, I would do things differently.  Therefore I am smarter than god, so that proves there is no such being"

How come I'm all of sudden called ignorant (not offended) when the evidence is lacking in its entirety?

Your argument over names is flawed because of your ignorance of the facts.  No offense intended, just a fact.

I invested most of my life (since 1976) getting a clue, I see none, but this is not an isolated lamentation toward Mormon Church, the Bible is equally a fiction in its entirety.

 

[Marmonboy]

Aztec does not = Nephite. The Aztecs migrated in from somewhere to the north centuries after the Nephite society collapsed. Maya, possibly, but not Aztec.